In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) upheld an arbitration agreement that required individual arbitration of claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court’s decision is in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
US Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, recently announced the creation of a new office, the Office of Compliance Initiatives. The “OCI” will be tasked with promoting greater knowledge of federal labor laws and regulations through enhanced compliance assistance outreach efforts. The goal of the OCI initiative is to prevent workplace violations.
Last month the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a class of 1,400 student bus drivers who sued their employer for failing to comply with state background check laws. The Court’s decision is notable because it is part of a broader trend of states and cities making it more difficult for employers to use background checks. Under Connor v. First Student, Inc., employers in California must comply with overlapping statutes regulating investigative consumer reporting agencies.
This month the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that workers’ compensation laws are the exclusive remedy for an employee’s injuries. In King v. CompPartners, the Court ruled that an employee’s tort claims against a utilization review company and a doctor performing a mandatory utilization review were preempted. In so doing, the Court reminded employees that the Court construes the Workers Compensation Act (WCA) liberally and broadly, in favor of awarding workers’ compensation, not in permitting civil litigation.
New York state just released draft guidance and models for employers to comply with the state’s new sexual harassment prevention policy and training requirements, which go into effect on October 9, 2018. The state is encouraging comments from the public, employers and employees through September 12, 2018, which can be submitted through the state’s website.
Craig Lee and Will Woods from Baker McKenzie’s Antitrust & Competition team shared the following update regarding no-poach agreements:
In July 2018, State Attorneys General from 11 states formed a coalition to investigate no-poach agreements in franchise contracts that restrict the ability to recruit or hire employees from the franchisor or another franchisee of the same chain. As part of the investigation, the coalition requested information about no-poach policies and practices from several fast food franchises.
The First District Court of Appeal’s August 1, 2018 decision in Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC reminds employers of the harsh consequences for failing to timely (and properly) pay an employee’s wages upon resignation or termination.
The Court of Appeal addressed the Superior Court’s order 1) affirming the California Labor Commissioner’s award of $4,250 in “waiting time” penalties (i.e., the statutory penalty under Labor Code section 203 for the time an employee has to wait for the late payment of final wages), and 2) awarding Nishiki attorneys’ fees in the amount of $86,160 following the employer’s unsuccessful appeal from the Labor Commissioner to the Superior Court. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the employer argued the waiting time penalties were unwarranted and the attorney fees award was excessive. Though the Court of Appeal reduced the waiting time penalties, it otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to award Nishiki additional attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Danko’s appeal to the First District.
Since January 1, 2018, California law has prohibited employers from asking applicants about their salary history. Earlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2282 into law to clarify several aspects of the salary history ban.
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (Case No. S234969), the California Supreme Court weighed in for the first time on the viability of a de minimis defense to California wage and hour claims.
Many commentators have since rushed to declare that “de minimis” is dead. Not so.
By now, you have no doubt heard about the passage of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, going into effect January 1, 2020. This new privacy legislation will force many companies – whether headquartered in or out of California – into compliance with several onerous requirements. Some have called it California’s answer to the (notorious) GDPR. But what does this mean from an employment perspective?
It means that despite the title, the Act extends certain protections to California employees because it defines “consumer” as “any natural person who is a California resident.” Therefore, regardless of where your company is located, if it employs at least one individual who is living or domiciled in the state and also meets one of the thresholds below, it must comply at least with regard to all California residents, including employees.